Nigel Farage and not Talking Like a Politician

As we are all aware (I hope), the UKIP were quite successful in the European Elections last week, and, as I disagree wholeheartedly with what they stand for, I’ve been reading furiously about what could have caused people to vote for them. One factor that I’ve seen mentioned a number of times is the way in which Mr Farage presents himself as ‘anti-establishment’.

Of course, he’s not ‘anti-establishment’, he’s a privileged former city worker with a bit of a racist streak (when he’s tired), which, to me, screams establishment.

Regardless of this fact, I would hazard a guess that this is something that captures voters and drags them to Farage, and, to give him some credit, he’s good at presenting himself as something he’s not (or lying…).

We are all aware of the way politicians like to twist questions and answer in such a way as to mention everything their aides have told them to, and that’s annoying. If an interviewer asks a question, we want to know the answer to that question, not the one that it’s been manipulated and transformed into.

This is where Farage is a bit different. I don’t want to say he’s ‘straight talking’, he obviously knows what he’s doing (most of the time), but it does seem that somewhere in the “diabolical plan to be perceived as ‘anti-establishment’ and chuck all the foreigners out” he’s written: ‘appear as though I’m not a politician’.

Obviously, a good way to go about this is to do things politicians don’t, like go down the pub and drink a nice ale or seven and smoke, or to be more direct in the way he answers questions. Being the leader of a minor party (despite what he might say) allows him to flout the political rules somewhat, because if it leads to a slip up, there’s not a lot to be lost.

Again, to begrudgingly give him credit, he hasn’t slipped up much, he’s outlined what he thinks and some people agree, and he’s not really strayed from his message, so his loyal followers have done just that, followed him, ale in hand, sticking up for the good people of Britain (as long as they’re not from somewhere else).

In recent weeks however, when asked about the UKIP’s policies about anything whatsoever that isn’t immigration or leaving the EU, he’s reverted back to that old establishment ploy of twisting questions and answering them in a way that gets his desired message across. He’s conforming to the standards of those people he’s so actively trying to prove he’s not.

Whenever he or his party is asked about domestic problems, the first answer is to blame the foreigners, he has to get the message across that they’re to blame, he has no policies regarding domestic problems; the UKIP don’t have a manifesto. With the European election, this was a major issue, but I’d suggest it’s not going to be at the top of the public’s list of worries when the focus shifts to the general election, and Farage, if he wants to be taken seriously, will need answers to questions about the issues at the top of such a list that don’t just blame immigration. If he has a whole manifesto lurking behind him in the shadows, it seems unlikely to me that he’ll be able to keep up his ‘straight talking’ appearance without contradicting the party’s policies somewhere along the line.

I also don’t want to forget that he has slipped up already, in an interview when he was asked what the difference between living next door to Romanians or Germans was, he said ‘you know the difference’ and later blamed his comments on ‘tiredness’. It’s hard to imagine a career politician making such a mistake and revealing themselves as a racist when tired.

A combination of slip ups and increasing pressure could (and hopefully will) lead to his ‘anti-establishment’ image crumbling and people realising that he’s just one of the politicians after all, and the dreadful UKIP ‘blame anyone but those responsible’ bandwagon will be derailed.

Even if that happens, we might get the Tories in again, and they hate blaming those responsible too…

Is Language Like Clothes?

Yesterday I posted a link on the Facebook page to an article in the Guardian comparing language to fashion, and after thinking about it, I decided that I’d write a blog about that subject (but not exactly that subject).

Now, I don’t know much about fashion and its history (other than that double-denim has never been acceptable, Tim), so I’ve decided to approach this from a subtly different angle, and compare language to clothes, as I think I’m more knowledgeable about the purpose of clothes that I am about the whole fashion thing.

Essentially, clothes are functional items, they keep us warm when it’s cold outside and preserve our modesty and protect us from ungodly sights on the bus to university. I think language is fundamentally a similar, practical thing, it helps us to communicate with our fellow hunter-gatherers when we are on the chase for our dinner around the vast expanse of the supermarket, and it allows us to communicate when we are building our shelter (or buying it – no, renting it – as is more often the case these days).

Clothes and language have other purposes though, aside from being used for the rather bland tasks mentioned above. Both can be used to make a statement about ourselves. At home with our significant other (or alone, in my case) we may be rather loungey with what we wear and how we speak, using a series of grunts and points to communicate and wearing the physical form of points and grunts, the jogger and the hoodie.

When we go outside of the house, we may try to make ourselves more aesthetically and audibly pleasing by throwing on a pair of jeans and throwing about some actual words (some of you may not, you know who you are, you probably grunted at what I just said). We are by no means at the height of fashion or literary genius, but, because we’re a self-conscious bunch, we’ve made a small effort to become more pleasing on the eyes and the ears of other human beings we may encounter on our travels, who knows who you might meet? One day I’ll meet someone…

Sorry, drifted off into my own thoughts there, anyway… *awkward cough*

Finally, if we go out to a fancy do, we may dress up in our best ball gown/dinner jacket and make ourselves appear fabulous, our clothes have become a statement of style, we want to impress. While we’re wearing such elaborate clothing we may as well also dress up linguistically, add a bit of zhoosh (I have no idea how to spell that word) to the words we speak and the way we say them.

You wouldn’t go to a posh do in your joggers and your hoodie, so why go in your language equivalent?

Or you may not care how you dress or how you speak, instead deciding to combine denim bottom halves and denim top halves, and talking in a similar nonsensical manner.

Thanks for reading again, I hope you are entertained and enlightened. Peace.

The Look Up Video – What I think

Hi again, it’s been a while, I hope you’re well.

After an interesting discussion yesterday about the Look Up video that’s been doing the rounds on Facebook, I thought I’d share my opinion in a bit more detail than a Facebook comment allows.

First of all, if you haven’t seen the video, here’s a link (I don’t do technology well so if it’s not a hyperlink just copy and paste or whatever): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7dLU6fk9QY

Granted it’s an interesting watch and raises a good topic for discussion. I think it’s wrong about most things though and I’ll explain why.

First of all though, of course all this technology can be a distraction, we all have those friends who sit on their phones at the pub or in other situations where they’ve chosen to socialise, but on the whole do we really think that the bad that comes of social media is not worth the good? I think we should accept that these things happen, and yes they’re annoying, but it’s just the opportunity cost of something that, really, is wonderful and miraculous.

‘We open our computers and it’s our doors that we shut’. Yeah, maybe, sorry about that, I don’t want to be out in the world ALL THE TIME. I wasn’t there, but I assume before social media or computers came about we could make a sweeping statement like ‘we open our books and it’s our doors that we shut’. At least now we can open our computers and communicate, if the point here is that we aren’t communicating enough with each other that – to me – is clearly a flawed statement, we’re communicating much more, just in a different way. If it’s that we’re not out enough, that’s just personal preference and how things can change.

‘A world of self interest, self image, self promotion; where we all share our best bits, but leave out the emotion’. I don’t know where to start with this, maybe I’m deluded in some way, but to me, this seems almost completely incorrect. Obviously there are people who are self obsessed, and maybe social media gives them more of a chance to fulfil their selfish agenda, but the majority of people I know are not like this. It’s a huge disservice to the population as a whole to make such a generalised statement suggesting that because people share pictures of themselves when they think they look good or share a funny story to make others laugh that they are somehow doing life wrong. They’re doing life right. Being happy with yourself and letting others know it isn’t bad, is quite obviously good. As for leaving out the emotion of course on social media we do. Or, maybe we don’t. People deal with their emotions in different ways, some let it out on Facebook for moral support from the masses, some share it with just their close friends to keep it more private and some keep it purely to themselves  to keep it completely their own. This isn’t a social media issue, this is personal preference and should be respected as such.

‘Being alone isn’t a problem, let me just emphasise; if you read a book, paint a picture, or do some exercise you’re being productive and present, not reserved and recluse’. So if I’m on social media and talking to my friends I’m somehow not being as productive as a person doing one of the things listed here. What makes that a more valuable use of my time? If I go to the gym and get fitter what more am I gaining than if I’m trying to be funny on Twitter? People might say I’m looking great but at the minute people tell me that I’m making them laugh. To be honest I’d rather do that. Social media IS social, communicating to people through this medium does not make you reserved or a recluse, it’s just a different way of talking. Lots of my friends live in Guernsey, I can’t talk to them face to face, I’d rather spend an hour chatting to them on Facebook than reading a book. That’s just me though, reading a book is fine, it’s your time, do what you want.

‘I can’t stand to hear the silence of a busy commuter train.’ I’m silent on a train, you might be too, it’s not because of technology, I just don’t want to talk. It’s a good time to relax, to think, to listen to music, have time to myself. I don’t think it’s a crime not to talk to a stranger next to you, nor is it strange if you do. Different people do different things in these situations, but I’ll hazard a guess that before mobile phones some people still didn’t like to talk to strangers and some people did. A bit like now.

‘It’s not very likely you’ll make world’s greatest dad, if you can’t entertain a child without using an iPad’. Well there can only be one world’s greatest dad so you don’t have much of a shot at that. You also may be a woman. Besides this though, what’s wrong with entertaining your kid with an iPad, why is something else more valid? You can do loads with an iPad from puzzles to games there just all in one place, organised, not in separate boxes in an untidy space. Of course going outside and interacting is important but so is being inside, one on one. Getting to know your kid takes a lot of different things (I assume, I’m not a dad) and I don’t think many parents just give up if the iPad isn’t quite doing the job.

‘We’re a generation of idiots, smart phones and dumb people’. No, we’re not, people are fascinating and intelligent, that’s a stupid thing to say. That comment just made me angry and upset. If that’s what you think I feel sorry for you, I really do.

And finally the guy that asks for directions. Okay, if he was on his phone he wouldn’t have had to ask someone for directions and that story wouldn’t unfold. But what if he was on his phone looking at a map? He gets to his destination earlier and bumps into the girl who bought coffee before him and she spills it on him. They exchange numbers and go on a date, live happily ever after in a similar kind of fairytale. That wouldn’t have happened without a smartphone. Hypotheticals don’t really make your point valid because I can just come up with a counter example.

So it’s not all bad in fact it’s mainly good. Think of all the charity campaigns that have gone viral recently and you can immediately see the power of social media. If you’re out with your friends then maybe don’t spend all of your time on your phone, but if you’re home alone with not much to do, chat to your friends 100s of miles away and maybe tell your Twitter followers a joke. Or read a book. Or go to the gym. All equally acceptable choices for what to do with your time.

I’ll end with this: You can make someone’s day without even seeing them, isn’t that marvellous?

Thanks for reading and I welcome any responses.